News:

Good day, denizens of OC.net! Per our tradition, the forum will shut down for Clean Monday, beginning around 9pm Sunday evening (2/18) and ending around 9pm Monday evening (2/19). In the spirit of the coming Forgiveness Sunday, I ask you to forgive me for the sins I have committed against you. At the end of Great and Holy Week, the Forum will also shut down for Holy Friday and Holy Saturday (times TBA).

In the past I was a member of the Socialist Workers Party which is Trotskyist.

There are two main groups of Socialists (with many sub groups).

1. Social Democrats who believe Capitalism can be reformed and society will evolve into Socialism. They run candidates who hope to get elected ( not just educational campaigns) and envision passing laws and changing polices.

2. Revolutionary Socialists. These groups don't believe Capitalism can be reformed. They believe the Capitalist Class will not give up power without a big fight. Ultimately getting people elected will be a dead end if they become a real threat to the Captialist Class. (Google on the FBI's Cointel distruption Program)

The other distinction is that Social Democrats reject Marx's view of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. They think the Working Class and the Capitalist Class can coexist.

Revolutionary Socialists maintain that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is inevitable. They intend to destroy the Capitalist Class ( the so called 1%)and replace it with everyone else (the 99%).

I personally tend to the latter though I am not obliged to follow any Party these days, so I differ on some points. I don't think the Capitalist Class will peacefully turn over power though it would obviously be the best scenario.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Anyone with the smattering of education about the history of WWII would know the history and meaning of fascism. I'll do your work for you and search for the post.

Here is a redacted post of mine from the politics section to make it compliant with the rules of this section (Mods please let me know if I've inadvertently broken a rule here):

Quote

Fascism is basically a group of people dedicated to an ideology. That's it. You could even argue it's not that tightly defined. It comes from Mussolini's political group. The Italian word fascio literally had all the associations that group or association has in English or Vereinigung has in German.

And if we are going to take Mussolini's group's point of departure as the definition for fascism, then it would mean anti-communismism. And if you had to paint it into a more specific corner, then yes it means a strong nationalistic regime which tends to support a MIXED economy. Some sectors being purely private, others purely public, others a mixture of cooperation between the public and private sector.

It's this latter economic approach of Italian fascism which gets too much attention, probably because it is what is somewhat different about the movement.

Anyone with the smattering of education about the history of WWII would know the history and meaning of fascism. I'll do your work for you and search for the post.

Here is a redacted post of mine from the politics section to make it compliant with the rules of this section (Mods please let me know if I've inadvertently broken a rule here):

Quote

Fascism is basically a group of people dedicated to an ideology. That's it. You could even argue it's not that tightly defined. It comes from Mussolini's political group. The Italian word fascio literally had all the associations that group or association has in English or Vereinigung has in German.

And if we are going to take Mussolini's group's point of departure as the definition for fascism, then it would mean anti-communismism. And if you had to paint it into a more specific corner, then yes it means a strong nationalistic regime which tends to support a MIXED economy. Some sectors being purely private, others purely public, others a mixture of cooperation between the public and private sector.

It's this latter economic approach of Italian fascism which gets too much attention, probably because it is what is somewhat different about the movement.

However, I really think fascism was, is, and will be an empty word.

Wonders never cease! I actually find myself in agreement with you ! I would only add, if you (and the mods) will permit me, that one thing that characterizes fascists of any ilk or specific political persuasion, is that they are bullies. In fact, there are some people I've known who think that bullying of a political nature, from any part of the political spectrum, is what defines fascism, in the broadest possible sense.

Anyone with the smattering of education about the history of WWII would know the history and meaning of fascism. I'll do your work for you and search for the post.

Here is a redacted post of mine from the politics section to make it compliant with the rules of this section (Mods please let me know if I've inadvertently broken a rule here):

Quote

Fascism is basically a group of people dedicated to an ideology. That's it. You could even argue it's not that tightly defined. It comes from Mussolini's political group. The Italian word fascio literally had all the associations that group or association has in English or Vereinigung has in German.

And if we are going to take Mussolini's group's point of departure as the definition for fascism, then it would mean anti-communismism. And if you had to paint it into a more specific corner, then yes it means a strong nationalistic regime which tends to support a MIXED economy. Some sectors being purely private, others purely public, others a mixture of cooperation between the public and private sector.

It's this latter economic approach of Italian fascism which gets too much attention, probably because it is what is somewhat different about the movement.

However, I really think fascism was, is, and will be an empty word.

Wonders never cease! I actually find myself in agreement with you ! I would only add, if you (and the mods) will permit me, that one thing that characterizes fascists of any ilk or specific political persuasion, is that they are bullies. In fact, there are some people I've known who think that bullying of a political nature, from any part of the political spectrum, is what defines fascism, in the broadest possible sense.

If you want to use the term Fascist merely as a slur then you can call anyone overly dedicated to something a Fascist.. Got it. It's like when Limbaugh calls Women "Femo-Nazi's" or like the term "Islamo-Fascits" or Diet Fascists.

But if you are talking about specific Fascist Regimes, particularly the Nazi's in Germany then it is possable to analyze the nature of that beast. They were not Leftists, they were funded by Industrialists, they destroyed the Unions etc..

So if you are a Neo-Fascist or Neo Nazi, you are an apologist for Hitler and harken back to the good old days. If you are a Proto-Fascist then you are steering so far to the Right that you may end up with a similar World View as the Nazi's ( blaming the Jews for the ills of the World..etc etc.)

« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 04:52:59 PM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Here is a redacted post of mine from the politics section to make it compliant with the rules of this section (Mods please let me know if I've inadvertently broken a rule here):

Quote

Fascism is basically a group of people dedicated to an ideology. That's it. You could even argue it's not that tightly defined. It comes from Mussolini's political group. The Italian word fascio literally had all the associations that group or association has in English or Vereinigung has in German.

And if we are going to take Mussolini's group's point of departure as the definition for fascism, then it would mean anti-communismism. And if you had to paint it into a more specific corner, then yes it means a strong nationalistic regime which tends to support a MIXED economy. Some sectors being purely private, others purely public, others a mixture of cooperation between the public and private sector.

It's this latter economic approach of Italian fascism which gets too much attention, probably because it is what is somewhat different about the movement.

However, I really think fascism was, is, and will be an empty word.

Wonders never cease! I actually find myself in agreement with you ! I would only add, if you (and the mods) will permit me, that one thing that characterizes fascists of any ilk or specific political persuasion, is that they are bullies. In fact, there are some people I've known who think that bullying of a political nature, from any part of the political spectrum, is what defines fascism, in the broadest possible sense.

If you want to use the term Fascist merely as a slur then you can call anyone overly dedicated to something a Fascist.. Got it. It's like when Limbaugh calls Women "Femo-Nazi's" or like the term "Islamo-Fascits" or Diet Fascists.

But if you are talking about specific Fascist Regimes, particularly the Nazi's in Germany then it is possable to analyze the nature of that beast. They were not Leftists, they were funded by Industrialists, they destroyed the Unions etc..

So if you are a Neo-Fascist or Neo Nazi, you are an apologist for Hitler and harken back to the good old days. If you are a Proto-Fascist then you are steering so far to the Right that you may end up with a similar World View as the Nazi's ( blaming the Jews for the ills of the World..etc etc.)

You are essentially correct here, Marc, explaining the difference between elitist fascism and leftist socialism. As a general rule, those fascists are nationalistic supremacists, while leftists follow internationalist ideas about people being equal.

However, Isa is pointing to an interesting and exceptional sub-issue by focusing on the word "National Socialist." Apparently the Nazis really did start out as a nationalist socialist group, headed by a person named Strausser. They focused both on socialist economic ideas and also on their own nationality. However, Hitler took over with his own far-right ideas, which you correctly describe. Similarly, leftist kibbutzes were developed along a socialist model, yet they were dedicated to one nationality and excluded the country's other main nationality from joining or even working in them. However, in all these kinds of cases of which I am aware the nationalistic aspect has eventually and recognizably won out over those systems' leftwing socialist aspect, confirming that exclusionary nationalism and leftism are contradictory.

To relate this massive tangent back to the main theme, one can point out that in ideology, Jesus, although Jewish by nationality and devoted to his religious heritage, was also a universalist. We would call him an internationalist in modern terms, but he also brought everyone into His own nation of "God's people."

Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.

« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 11:47:39 PM by rakovsky »

Logged

The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Here is a redacted post of mine from the politics section to make it compliant with the rules of this section (Mods please let me know if I've inadvertently broken a rule here):

Quote

Fascism is basically a group of people dedicated to an ideology. That's it. You could even argue it's not that tightly defined. It comes from Mussolini's political group. The Italian word fascio literally had all the associations that group or association has in English or Vereinigung has in German.

And if we are going to take Mussolini's group's point of departure as the definition for fascism, then it would mean anti-communismism. And if you had to paint it into a more specific corner, then yes it means a strong nationalistic regime which tends to support a MIXED economy. Some sectors being purely private, others purely public, others a mixture of cooperation between the public and private sector.

It's this latter economic approach of Italian fascism which gets too much attention, probably because it is what is somewhat different about the movement.

However, I really think fascism was, is, and will be an empty word.

Wonders never cease! I actually find myself in agreement with you ! I would only add, if you (and the mods) will permit me, that one thing that characterizes fascists of any ilk or specific political persuasion, is that they are bullies. In fact, there are some people I've known who think that bullying of a political nature, from any part of the political spectrum, is what defines fascism, in the broadest possible sense.

If you want to use the term Fascist merely as a slur then you can call anyone overly dedicated to something a Fascist.. Got it. It's like when Limbaugh calls Women "Femo-Nazi's" or like the term "Islamo-Fascits" or Diet Fascists.

But if you are talking about specific Fascist Regimes, particularly the Nazi's in Germany then it is possable to analyze the nature of that beast. They were not Leftists, they were funded by Industrialists, they destroyed the Unions etc..

So if you are a Neo-Fascist or Neo Nazi, you are an apologist for Hitler and harken back to the good old days. If you are a Proto-Fascist then you are steering so far to the Right that you may end up with a similar World View as the Nazi's ( blaming the Jews for the ills of the World..etc etc.)

You are essentially correct here, Marc, explaining the difference between elitist fascism and leftist socialism. As a general rule, those fascists are nationalistic supremacists, while leftists follow internationalist ideas about people being equal.

However, Isa is pointing to an interesting and exceptional sub-issue by focusing on the word "National Socialist." Apparently the Nazis really did start out as a nationalist socialist group, headed by a person named Strausser. They focused both on socialist economic ideas and also on their own nationality. However, Hitler took over with his own far-right ideas, which you correctly describe. Similarly, leftist kibbutzes were developed along a socialist model, yet they were dedicated to one nationality and excluded the country's other main nationality from joining or even working in them. However, in all these kinds of cases of which I am aware the nationalistic aspect has eventually and recognizably won out over those systems' leftwing socialist aspect, confirming that exclusionary nationalism and leftism are contradictory.

To relate this massive tangent back to the main theme, one can point out that in ideology, Jesus, although Jewish by nationality and devoted to his religious heritage, was also a universalist. We would call him an internationalist in modern terms, but he also brought everyone into His own nation of "God's people."

Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.

I think you may have overstated Strasser's role in the formation of Nazi ideology. He was on the left wing and so he was quickly expelled. He formed an opposition group to the Nazi Party. Read this:

Following his expulsion, he set up his own party, the Black Front, composed of radical ex-Nazis, in an attempt to split the Nazi Party. Here his lack of anti-Semitism was displayed by his willingness to associate with Jews,[2] such as an exile from Germany named Helmut Hirsch, who would later be executed for an attempted plot on Hitler. His party proved unable to counter Hitler's rise to power in 1933, and Strasser spent the years of the Third Reich in exile. The Nazi Left itself was annihilated during the Night of the Long Knives in 1934 (in which his brother was killed), leaving Hitler as undisputed party leader and able to pacify both industrialists and the military into accepting his new National Socialist regime. In addition to the "Black Front", Strasser at this time headed the Free German Movement outside Germany which sought to enlist the aid of Germans throughout the world in bringing about the downfall of Hitler and Nazism.Exile

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

You are essentially correct here, Marc, explaining the difference between elitist fascism and leftist socialism. As a general rule, those fascists are nationalistic supremacists, while leftists follow internationalist ideas about people being equal.

However, Isa is pointing to an interesting and exceptional sub-issue by focusing on the word "National Socialist." Apparently the Nazis really did start out as a nationalist socialist group, headed by a person named Strausser. They focused both on socialist economic ideas and also on their own nationality. However, Hitler took over with his own far-right ideas, which you correctly describe. Similarly, leftist kibbutzes were developed along a socialist model, yet they were dedicated to one nationality and excluded the country's other main nationality from joining or even working in them. However, in all these kinds of cases of which I am aware the nationalistic aspect has eventually and recognizably won out over those systems' leftwing socialist aspect, confirming that exclusionary nationalism and leftism are contradictory.

To relate this massive tangent back to the main theme, one can point out that in ideology, Jesus, although Jewish by nationality and devoted to his religious heritage, was also a universalist. We would call him an internationalist in modern terms, but he also brought everyone into His own nation of "God's people."

Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.

I think you may have overstated Strasser's role in the formation of Nazi ideology. He was on the left wing and so he was quickly expelled. He formed an opposition group to the Nazi Party. Read this:

Following his expulsion, he set up his own party, the Black Front, composed of radical ex-Nazis, in an attempt to split the Nazi Party. Here his lack of anti-Semitism was displayed by his willingness to associate with Jews,[2] such as an exile from Germany named Helmut Hirsch, who would later be executed for an attempted plot on Hitler. His party proved unable to counter Hitler's rise to power in 1933, and Strasser spent the years of the Third Reich in exile. The Nazi Left itself was annihilated during the Night of the Long Knives in 1934 (in which his brother was killed), leaving Hitler as undisputed party leader and able to pacify both industrialists and the military into accepting his new National Socialist regime. In addition to the "Black Front", Strasser at this time headed the Free German Movement outside Germany which sought to enlist the aid of Germans throughout the world in bringing about the downfall of Hitler and Nazism.Exile

The fact that Strasser was later exiled after starting the movement does not negate the idea that initially this movement had a major contradictory "nationalist" "socialist" element, formulated to a big degree by Strasser. Their predecessor was even called the German "workers" party.

Wouldn't you agree that there is an inherent contradiction in setting up a system that is devoted to socialism and relieving the oppression of workers on one hand, and a strong, exclusivist ethnocentric nationalism on the other? Wouldn't you say that the former is left wing but the latter is right wing?

« Last Edit: March 09, 2013, 01:06:35 AM by rakovsky »

Logged

The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

You are essentially correct here, Marc, explaining the difference between elitist fascism and leftist socialism. As a general rule, those fascists are nationalistic supremacists, while leftists follow internationalist ideas about people being equal.

However, Isa is pointing to an interesting and exceptional sub-issue by focusing on the word "National Socialist." Apparently the Nazis really did start out as a nationalist socialist group, headed by a person named Strausser. They focused both on socialist economic ideas and also on their own nationality. However, Hitler took over with his own far-right ideas, which you correctly describe. Similarly, leftist kibbutzes were developed along a socialist model, yet they were dedicated to one nationality and excluded the country's other main nationality from joining or even working in them. However, in all these kinds of cases of which I am aware the nationalistic aspect has eventually and recognizably won out over those systems' leftwing socialist aspect, confirming that exclusionary nationalism and leftism are contradictory.

To relate this massive tangent back to the main theme, one can point out that in ideology, Jesus, although Jewish by nationality and devoted to his religious heritage, was also a universalist. We would call him an internationalist in modern terms, but he also brought everyone into His own nation of "God's people."

Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.

I think you may have overstated Strasser's role in the formation of Nazi ideology. He was on the left wing and so he was quickly expelled. He formed an opposition group to the Nazi Party. Read this:

Following his expulsion, he set up his own party, the Black Front, composed of radical ex-Nazis, in an attempt to split the Nazi Party. Here his lack of anti-Semitism was displayed by his willingness to associate with Jews,[2] such as an exile from Germany named Helmut Hirsch, who would later be executed for an attempted plot on Hitler. His party proved unable to counter Hitler's rise to power in 1933, and Strasser spent the years of the Third Reich in exile. The Nazi Left itself was annihilated during the Night of the Long Knives in 1934 (in which his brother was killed), leaving Hitler as undisputed party leader and able to pacify both industrialists and the military into accepting his new National Socialist regime. In addition to the "Black Front", Strasser at this time headed the Free German Movement outside Germany which sought to enlist the aid of Germans throughout the world in bringing about the downfall of Hitler and Nazism.Exile

The fact that Strasser was later exiled after starting the movement does not negate the idea that initially this movement had a major contradictory "nationalist" "socialist" element, formulated to a big degree by Strasser. Their predecessor was even called the German "workers" party.

Wouldn't you agree that there is an inherent contradiction in setting up a system that is devoted to socialism and relieving the oppression of workers on one hand, and a strong, exclusivist ethnocentric nationalism on the other? Wouldn't you say that the former is left wing but the latter is right wing?

In my opinion in any reasonable analysis of the Nazi movement you have to discount Strasser's wing. In fact, their fate proves the Anti-Socialist mind set of the Nazi Party under Hitler. Anyone with a hint of Socialist idea's was quickly murdered or exiled. So the fairer analysis would be that not only did Hitler destroy the Unions and other working class organizations but also quickly moved to crush anyone who leaned Left within his own Party.. Strasser should be most remembered as being Anti-Nazi..

Strasser was murder in 1934 which is very early on. It was done during the "Night of the Long Knives". To associate Hitler and his Nazi Party with the Left as Isa likes to do is clearly wrong. Conservatives depend on the ignorance of their audience.

The Night of the Long Knives (German: About this sound Nacht der langen Messer (help·info)), sometimes called Operation Hummingbird or, in Germany, the Röhm-Putsch, was a purge that took place in Nazi Germany between June 30 and July 2 1934, when the Nazi regime carried out a series of political murders. Leading figures of the left-wing Strasserist faction of the Nazi Party, along with its figurehead, Gregor Strasser, were murdered, as were prominent conservative anti-Nazis (such as former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and Gustav Ritter von Kahr, who had suppressed Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch in 1923). Many of those killed were leaders of the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary brownshirts.

At least 85 people died during the purge, although the final death toll may have been in the hundreds,[c] and more than a thousand perceived opponents were arrested.

« Last Edit: March 09, 2013, 12:43:06 PM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Jesus was a Galilean on his mothers side and possibly descended from the tribe of Levi, therefore he was an Israelite and not a Judaean, or Jew. Jesus inherited the messianic promise via his foster father Joseph who was of the tribe of Judah and as we know full well didn't have any genetic input. The Jews were aware of this and accused him of being a Samaritan, by which they meant an Israelite an accusation which he didn't deny. By religion Christ was a Christian, of course.

Jesus was a Galilean on his mothers side and possibly descended from the tribe of Levi, therefore he was an Israelite and not a Judaean, or Jew. Jesus inherited the messianic promise via his foster father Joseph who was of the tribe of Judah and as we know full well didn't have any genetic input. The Jews were aware of this and accused him of being a Samaritan, by which they meant an Israelite an accusation which he didn't deny. By religion Christ was a Christian, of course.

Jesus was a Galilean and an Israelite but not a Judaean, or Jew.

"Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed." (Rev. 5, 5)

If he was a Samaritan, why did he act as a Jew with the Samaritan woman at the well? Why did he tell her that "You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews" (and not "from Judea", as you would have us believe)? Who is "we" in that context? Christians by any chance?

As for his Mother's relatives, they were not from Galilee: "Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth." (Lk. 1, 39-40)

Jesus was a Galilean on his mothers side and possibly descended from the tribe of Levi, therefore he was an Israelite and not a Judaean, or Jew. Jesus inherited the messianic promise via his foster father Joseph who was of the tribe of Judah and as we know full well didn't have any genetic input. The Jews were aware of this and accused him of being a Samaritan, by which they meant an Israelite an accusation which he didn't deny. By religion Christ was a Christian, of course.

Jesus was a Galilean and an Israelite but not a Judaean, or Jew.

Can't you realise no one treats seriously your political fiction? Deal with it and stop posting it over and over again.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Jesus was a Galilean on his mothers side and possibly descended from the tribe of Levi, therefore he was an Israelite and not a Judaean, or Jew. Jesus inherited the messianic promise via his foster father Joseph who was of the tribe of Judah and as we know full well didn't have any genetic input. The Jews were aware of this and accused him of being a Samaritan, by which they meant an Israelite an accusation which he didn't deny. By religion Christ was a Christian, of course.

Jesus was a Galilean and an Israelite but not a Judaean, or Jew.

Can't you realise no one treats seriously your political fiction? Deal with it and stop posting it over and over again.

Jesus was a Galilean on his mothers side and possibly descended from the tribe of Levi, therefore he was an Israelite and not a Judaean, or Jew. Jesus inherited the messianic promise via his foster father Joseph who was of the tribe of Judah and as we know full well didn't have any genetic input. The Jews were aware of this and accused him of being a Samaritan, by which they meant an Israelite an accusation which he didn't deny. By religion Christ was a Christian, of course.

Jesus was a Galilean and an Israelite but not a Judaean, or Jew.

He never taught anything outside of Judaism. The coming of the Messiah is well within the Jewish Faith. The disagreement was over his Spiritual Identity as the Messiah, not that there is such a doctrine.

Btw... I am pretty sure he was born in Bethlehem. He was brought to the Temple at the appointed time and ritually circumscribed into the Jewish Covenant and his Mother was a Jew...

I wonder if Jesus had a Bar-Mitzvah ?

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Speaking of connections between Christianity and Judaism, in the Old Testament there were big curtains and gates in the front of the ancient Temple's Holy of Holies. In Orthodoxy, the gates and curtains of the iconastasis are opened several times during the liturgy. Was there an equivalent in ancient Judaism? Namely, were there times in synagogue or ancient Temple services when their gates and curtains were also opened, as in when the priest entered it for the Day of Atonement?

Logged

The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Speaking of connections between Christianity and Judaism, in the Old Testament there were big curtains and gates in the front of the ancient Temple's Holy of Holies. In Orthodoxy, the gates and curtains of the iconastasis are opened several times during the liturgy. Was there an equivalent in ancient Judaism? Namely, were there times in synagogue or ancient Temple services when their gates and curtains were also opened, as in when the priest entered it for the Day of Atonement?

IIRC, the Curtain remained closed until it was rent in two during the Crucifixion.

Speaking of connections between Christianity and Judaism, in the Old Testament there were big curtains and gates in the front of the ancient Temple's Holy of Holies. In Orthodoxy, the gates and curtains of the iconastasis are opened several times during the liturgy. Was there an equivalent in ancient Judaism? Namely, were there times in synagogue or ancient Temple services when their gates and curtains were also opened, as in when the priest entered it for the Day of Atonement?

IIRC, the Curtain remained closed until it was rent in two during the Crucifixion.

Joseph said it took alot of oxen to open the curtain, so presumably it was opened at some point.

Logged

The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20